Wanting players to take in-game religion more seriously

[hawkeyefan]

One can dream.

I would appreciate the entire astral plane and outer planes - and all of their gods - removed from the core D&D rules.

Split it off, so the optional Planescape setting consolidates all of this D&D tradition. Probably also merge the Deities & Demigods splatbook into this setting as well.

That way, players who feel gods are less fun can lack the rules that shove them down their throats.

Meanwhile, players who love the gods have easy access to them. As a separate setting, Planescape can emphasize them.

Why not just do that on your own? Remove any and all religion in your game. Why expect the majority of folks who enjoy that stuff to have to change instead of just you?

I mean, I hate Rangers, but I just don't play them. I don't expect them to be removed from the game just for little ol' me.

I think I've read all the responses in this thread...

Much of the discussion here has been quite helpful. One thing I've realized is that I'm a much more experienced gamer than my players (all of whom I know very well), and I *think* they'd enjoy playing a more serious game if they'd "let themselves". Some people don't have much experience with role-playing, and it can feel very goofy at first. Some people even use humor as a defense mechanism to avoid deeper engagement (like me!).

So... having a direct conversation with my players is a good idea, but part of me wants the joy of serious role-playing to hit them like a flash of revelation. Does that make sense? Like the joy of any other discovery. It would be more fun to draw them in slowly than to just ask them to be more serious because I'd enjoy it more. Has anyone ever seen that happen? Seen a new player suddenly cross some inflection point and really "get it"?

I know what you're talking about, and it's a real joy when it happens. I don't think what you're describing needs to have anything to do with the deities or religions of the game, though.

My players don't react all that strongly to any religious aspect of the game. For the most part, the religions are just flavor for divine based characters like clerics. Cleric of war, cleric of light, cleric of knowledge...things like that. The gods are just personifications of ideas. They can be a compelling part of the game, or they can be window dressing...it depends on the game.

My players're usually big on the villains I've created. Different players are going to focus on different aspects of the game or the setting. So you have to find what that aspect, or aspects because there can be more than one, will be for your players. Figure that out and then do your best to build up that part of the game. If you're going to talk to them about taking the game seriously, find out what they each enjoy about the game.

 

[Caliburn101]

If you want a very good take on how to turn D&D religions into living, breathing and relevant aspects of character's lives, then check out the Scarred Lands setting, or the notes on Theism in Mythras.

Both require that a religious 'class' follow the tenets of their faith and live a life in emulation of their deity.

I always emphasise this in my homebrew games, and have no problem with removing spell-access to clerics or paladins who fall too wide of the mark. I've done the same for druids who allowed abuses of nature as well...

In the end, the GM controls the deity, and the deity provides the power to the follower. It is axiomatic that the GM, with the requisite clarity at the start of the campaign to their players should reserve the right to role-play the relationship the deity's relationship with the character and when their requirements aren't met, react in a way appropriate to their nature. The same is true of Warlock patrons of course.

I have also, on rare occasions, had a deity reward a players casting or using another god-based ability by having the spell or ability critical, force disadvantage on saves for it, or enjoying maximisation of damage, or double duration etc. Add a few god-rays or other manifestation of deific approval (a LR power recharges on a SR with suitable 'special effects') and the players really feels they are linked to their deity - not merely seeing them (however OOC) as a power source to be placated when absolutely necessary, but otherwise just campaign fluff...

 

[Imaculata]

While gods that are petty, jealous, vindictive and boisterous make for a real good history lesson or Xena episode, there is a reason those religions have few followers today. It is poor soil for anything resembling contemporary belief.

You are aware just how many centuries the Greek and Roman religions were the dominant religions in a large part of our world?

Just because the gods of a pantheon share similar traits to human beings, to the point where to us it almost sounds like a soap opera, that does not mean that people cannot strongly believe in it. As is evidence by the hundreds of temples and the thousands of statues that were made in their honor.

As a DM it is entirely up to you to decide what the flavor of the dominant religions in your world is. I usually lean towards deities that don't literally show themselves, but never the less have a certain presence in the world. It helps if your players have a better picture of the gods. If the DM is detailed in his descriptions of the statues and places of worship for the gods, then this makes it easier for players to be immersed. And if the players can join in with religious festivals, this can also emphasize the fun aspects of a popular religion. It is important to highlight the positive aspects of the religions in people's lives.

For example, in my campaign I described how two naughty old ladies were paying tribute to the goddess of love right before a big festival, in the hope of meeting an attractive man. This made the players chuckle, but also brought the world to life for them.

 

[CapnZapp]

How about you don't take a crap on people's real world faiths in order to make your point?

This shows a lot of ignorance regarding just how many centuries the Greek and Roman religions were the dominant religions in their part of the world, which at some point was a very large part of the world.

Just because the gods of a pantheon share similar traits to human beings, to the point where to us it almost sounds like a soap opera, that does not mean that people cannot strongly believe in it. As is evidence by the hundreds of temples and the thousands of statues that were made in their honor.

You might be misunderstanding me then.

I'm definitely not denigrating historical people believing in Zeus or Wodin.

I'm talking about how difficult it is to ask contempory people, your players, to treat the uniquely shallow treatment of such religions that is D&D seriously.

First and foremost difference: real people have no way of proving the existence of the gods. Hence, they could believe in them. It's not only that we know our game is pretend, we also know there can be no actual faith in our game world, since the existence of the gods is not up for debate. They are absolutely concretely there.

Second difference: we look at polytheistic religions from the vantage point of monotheistic religions; religions that do not anthropomorphize their god. That's a pretty hard sell all by itself.

This discussion isn't about people that actually believe in Zeus or Wodin, neither then nor now. This discussion is about contemporary D&D players having a hard time taking D&D religion seriously.

Please do not think I'm trying to bring real-life religion into this. I'm really not crapping on your religion; if you think I do, please think again.

I'm merely advancing the argument that perhaps you'd be better served by going with D&Ds strengths and avoiding its weaknesses. Save your wish for players treating religion with reverence for a game that's actually treating religion with reverence.

And instead use D&D for what it was meant to do: to kick in doors and bash some dungeons, and just perhaps have a Paladin paying lip service to the notion of faith - mostly to make him stand out compared to the other murderhobos in the gang. Really, that's okay too. After all, it's just a game.

 

[Imaculata]

I'm talking about how difficult it is to ask contempory people, your players, to treat the uniquely shallow treatment of such religions that is D&D seriously.

I do agree with you that D&D's standard pantheon is rather shallow. Which is why I always use my own gods in any of my campaigns. There may be a lot of practical reasons why the designers kept the D&D pantheon shallow on purpose, but a DM should not feel forced to resign himself to this.

First and foremost difference: real people have no way of proving the existence of the gods. Hence, they could believe in them. It's not only that we know our game is pretend, we also know there can be no actual faith in our game world, since the existence of the gods is not up for debate. They are absolutely concretely there.

Well, that kind of depends on how the DM presents the gods in his campaign. I don't remember the DMG making any declarations regarding how the gods must be portrayed. So they could be very active, or very inactive gods. They could send avatars down, or never be seen at all.

Considering all the fantastic elements in the game world (dragons, fairies, trolls) it is of course highly likely that the D&D gods do exist in their respective fictional world. But it is by no means guaranteed.

Second difference: we look at polytheistic religions from the vantage point of monotheistic religions; religions that do not anthropomorphize their god. That's a pretty hard sell all by itself.

I disagree regarding monotheistic religions not anthropomorphizing their god. They do it all the time. I also think it is the reason we have saints.

This discussion isn't about people that actually believe in Zeus or Wodin, neither then nor now. This discussion is about contemporary D&D players having a hard time taking D&D religion seriously.

Please do not think I'm trying to bring real-life religion into this. I'm really not crapping on your religion; if you think I do, please think again.

I'm well aware, don't worry. Besides, I'm an Atheist.

I'm merely advancing the argument that perhaps you'd be better served by going with D&Ds strengths and avoiding its weaknesses. Save your wish for players treating religion with reverence for a game that's actually treating religion with reverence.

This I disagree with. I see it as a challenge to turn those weaknesses into strengths. And I think that may be what the OP is trying to do as well. If a DM does not like something about the lore, he can change it.

And instead use D&D for what it was meant to do: to kick in doors and bash some dungeons, and just perhaps have a Paladin paying lip service to the notion of faith - mostly to make him stand out compared to the other murderhobos in the gang. Really, that's okay too. After all, it's just a game.

While there's nothing wrong with the kick in the door style of play, I get the impression that the OP is trying to make his campaign more than that. And I get that. I try to do the same almost every week with my players.

 

[CapnZapp]

I guess I'm just open to the possibility D&D is the only rpg game the OP plays.

I'm cautiously trying to whisper "there's plenty of games better suited to games with a significant religious component". These games can still be fantasy games about killing people and taking their stuff. But with a more subtle or nuanced treatment of the divine.

Basically, you want a game written by somebody that actually understands what you need for real faith, for believable religious characters. At its core, there need to be a seed of uncertainty.

D&D is much too absolute to be that game.

I could offer actual suggestions, but I won't. The subject is contentious as is, and naming any examples would likely only derail the discussion.

So I'll settle for having stated my suggestion solution plainly and clearly: switch games. Now back to other possible solutions

 

[Olrox17]

Consider on the other hand that the "spells and boons" granted by "the gods" are subject to a Dispel Magic spell from a regular old wizard. Even the most secret of the secret "holy" rites can be learned by a Lore Bard, and it works all the same, even with no god powering it. These things don't in any way behave like divine manifestations. They behave exactly like all the other magical and non-magical tools that PCs have access to on a regular basis, right down to the refresh rate (short rest or long rest). It doesn't take a hyperphysicist to suspect that there's some shared underlying causal mechanism there. Bards and wizards should be the most skeptical of the skeptics when it comes to the divinity of the so-called gods in D&D.

If I show you an advanced AI and holographic unit with capabilities in excess of but not qualitatively different from the technology that you use on a day-to-day basis, how would you rate my chances of persuading you that I'm actually a divine being worthy of your "worship," however it is that I define worship?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

You are certainly correct about spells. If we read the bard's fluff text, we can find that "Bards say
 that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos. The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers". Basically, bards are hackers, capable of using a fraction of the gods' own power without their guidance. That's very impressive, and I might see a powerful bard being pretty disrespectful towards the typical D&D pantheon, in the same way I can see a decent hacker being disrespectful towards Apple, Microsoft or Google.

Spells, however, are not the only thing gods can grant. If we strictly adhere to RAW, I can at least find blessings, an alternative and powerful form of reward on the DMG, specifically granted by the gods. While magic items are usually pretty rare in 5e (and can't be crafted, not even by a great wizard or bard), those blessings can be bestowed by a diety at will, they last as long as the diety wishes, and there's no hard cap on how many can be stacked on a single person.

Although it is not RAW, we can safely assume that a god can alter reality at will, at least in matters relative to the god's domain. When traveling the sea, I certainly wouldn't want to draw the ire of the sea god, for instance.

While playing a character in a default D&D world, I wouldn't openly defy a god, unless I know there's another great entity (such as another god, or an archdevil) watching my back. IMO, a character with an habit to openly defy ALL gods, at all times, should probably meet its end to some great misfortune or curse, if it doesn't end up lynched by an angry mob first.

 

[Olrox17]

There are heaps of things in DnD that are immensely powerful and grant spells to their followers that are not Gods.

Besides when Greek Olympians actually existed in the real world people used to mock them all the time which is why we have so many tales about what happens when mortals mock Greek Olympians or, you know, just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But of course. Demon princes, archdevils, archfeys, you name it. Gods just happen to be the most powerful of them all, and thus the most dangerous to piss off.

I'm sorry, you probably didn't mean to say that, but I don't think that the greek olympians actually existed in the real world, ever. Some people believed they existed, while some other people (a bunch of great philosophers, too; Democritus is a good example) did not believe in their existence. Most of the mocking probably came from the latter category.

There is a great difference between an average D&D pantheon and an historical pagan pantheon.
The average D&D pantheon is 100% real to the people of their world. No one disputes the gods' existence.
Historical pagan pantheon were believed to be real by many, disputed by some. Their existence was in question.

 

[Shasarak]

But of course. Demon princes, archdevils, archfeys, you name it. Gods just happen to be the most powerful of them all, and thus the most dangerous to piss off.

It makes no essential difference to a normal person if you are being destroyed by an Archdevil or a God.

I'm sorry, you probably didn't mean to say that, but I don't think that the greek olympians actually existed in the real world, ever. Some people believed they existed, while some other people (a bunch of great philosophers, too; Democritus is a good example) did not believe in their existence. Most of the mocking probably came from the latter category.

That is probably the worst curse of all to be thought a myth much like the proverbial Cassandra.

 

[Olrox17]

It makes no essential difference to a normal person if you are being destroyed by an Archdevil or a God.

Indeed. That's why I would advise against pissing off any uber-poweful entities, regardless of their exact category! Gods are just the worst, being at the top of the food chain and all

There are plenty of stories of characters cursed by an insulted great witch, or tormented for years by a cunning fiend. If you wanna mess with the great powers, you ought to make sure you're either a great power yourself, are you're backed by one.

That is probably the worst curse of all to be thought a myth much like the proverbial Cassandra.

Well, apparently there are still some followers of hellenic paganism in the world. Dunno how many, probably very few.